it winds itself and i did have some that were in focus so i think the film tension is okay. it’s not like just one roll was off. it was intermittent
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Can we talk about film?
- Thread starter mollyc
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
i did discover going through the magic lantern book that i was in matrix metering not spot. i’m pretty sure i started off in spot but i am not particularly careful with my cameras when i put them in a bag. that might explain why i found such wild variations in my exposures. will have to keep an eye on that going forward but obviously that doesn’t affect the focus problem.
Lovely. Shame about the focusing being off on some of them. I really don’t have the patience to try film. Stick with it.
First the good news. Yes, the G lens series is compatible with the F-100, and probably not the lens if the focus problem doesn't exist on other bodies like your D700/D800. At least that rules out a problem with the lens (unlike my Canon FD 135, repaired once, that has a know part that breaks inside the lens, and of course no longer produced, so stays wide open.)
That brings it to the F100 body. Don't know about calibration issue, but probably not even in the vocabulary during that era. Quick search suggest more a menu setting issue. To further troubleshoot, turn off auto focus and see how precise manual focus with the focus aid in the viewfinder. Suspect it will be excellent. On quick research, didn't download a manual but the appear to be available, however, discussions on focus problems centered around menu settings. In addition to the standard focus menu selections, there is the suggestion to disable (set to "0") Custom Function 9 which is Dynamic AutoFocus with the servo motor. Apparently, by default (and system reset) that is set to on. Here is the discussion I found when searching "F100 focusing problem"...https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/nikon-f100-compose-and-frame-focus-problem.105192/
thank you. this is the same setting that @bunnspecial told me to check/change. I'm not using dynamic AF, but I think that thread you linked has some of the wording wrong. I did some more research last night, and it is Custom Function 9, but the language is "Closest Subject Priority in Single Servo AF" which is what my camera is currently set to (Dynamic is one of the focus tracking options). I found a manual by Thom Hogan that says to disable this setting, so I am going to do so. It's such a dumb setting to assume you'd always want the thing closest to the camera in focus. I suppose for somethings that would be okay, but not if you aren't in a tracking mode.
The only thing that seems weird about that is that the areas that ARE in focus in my images aren't anywhere near an actual focal point. Most are literally at the very closest edge of the frame. However the issue is also intermittent, so I agree that a menu setting is most likely.
I know there were a few instances where I just completely forgot to change the focal point at all, and that's actually probably why that one flower photo is completely OOF. But there were others where I know *specifically* that I took care to set the right FP and that is not where the focus fell. I'm not that bad of a photographer.
I will change setting 9 and do some more experimenting and not use this camera for a "real" shoot like a vacation until I do a full roll of test shots.
Thanks for your help. ?
Well, disabled option 9, loaded up another roll and shot it all while on my daily dog walk. I was very deliberate with framing and layering, and making sure to use all the different focal points. I was also careful to note that the focusing screen did not seem to shift as I was shooting or hitting the shutter button. I do know that I missed focus specifically on one or two frames (I was trying to shoot a very tiny spider), and I shot the whole roll with the 35mm at f/1.8. I will send it off today and report back in a week or two when I get scans for it.
I had intended to do something like this with my very first roll, but I didn't want to ruin it or "waste" it on unimportant images. So of course, I ruined most of three rolls instead.
I had intended to do something like this with my very first roll, but I didn't want to ruin it or "waste" it on unimportant images. So of course, I ruined most of three rolls instead.
So I just got my scans back from my test roll, and they are equally bad in terms of focus as my other rolls, even shooting slowly and deliberately. I guess my next thing is to try with that lens stopped down a bit and also with a different lens entirely, although it's super unfortunate that the 35mm doesn't seem to be compatible with it.
Otherwise, I don't really know what to do. I might take it in to the store where I bought it and see if they have any suggestions. I think I had a 100 day warranty on it, but I might be just outside that now.
Otherwise, I don't really know what to do. I might take it in to the store where I bought it and see if they have any suggestions. I think I had a 100 day warranty on it, but I might be just outside that now.
https://www.nicefilmclub.com/shared-scans/20a9ab5e
here is the roll. the dog images i knew would be OOF because she was moving and she's hard to catch anyway (although actually 13 was supposed to be the dog OOF and the yellow flowers behind her in focus, but the whole thign is crap). but the flowers/landscapes, etc. are NOT hard for me to get in focus, and it all looked in focus through the viewfinder.
and for instance, the image in the middle with the large sign for Navy Federal Credit Union (image 14 the numbers are in the upper left of each frame)...I had actually focused on the Do Not Enter sign in the background. On 20 I had focused on the little gazebo in the background. 22 & 24 should have been the purple flowers, and 23 should have been the bridge thing in the background.....
here is the roll. the dog images i knew would be OOF because she was moving and she's hard to catch anyway (although actually 13 was supposed to be the dog OOF and the yellow flowers behind her in focus, but the whole thign is crap). but the flowers/landscapes, etc. are NOT hard for me to get in focus, and it all looked in focus through the viewfinder.
and for instance, the image in the middle with the large sign for Navy Federal Credit Union (image 14 the numbers are in the upper left of each frame)...I had actually focused on the Do Not Enter sign in the background. On 20 I had focused on the little gazebo in the background. 22 & 24 should have been the purple flowers, and 23 should have been the bridge thing in the background.....
I shot my first ever roll of TMAX 3200 just a few weeks ago. It's very grainy, but not unbearably so if exposed properly. The grain is much more noticeable on a display than on prints.
These were taken with my Nikon F5 and developed using Kodak HC-110 developer. I have more, but they're mostly personal photos of family members.
Attachments
thank you!
my daughter is in a darkroom class right now and works with developing bw film. her teacher said she could develop a roll for me. i want to do some grainy portraits of her, so i just asked the film store for a 3200 speed film wihout really researching films. oops.
thanks for sharing.
my daughter is in a darkroom class right now and works with developing bw film. her teacher said she could develop a roll for me. i want to do some grainy portraits of her, so i just asked the film store for a 3200 speed film wihout really researching films. oops.
thanks for sharing.
TMAX P3200 is actually 800 speed film that is made to be pushed to ISO 3200. So another option would be to try it at 800 or 1600 speed and see how it turns out.
But I did get some very nice portraits of my wife and son that aren't too grainy. Just make sure to meter your exposure for the subject's skin with a decent amount of light (the 3200 speed doesn't need a ton of light, obviously) and be careful not to underexpose and you should get a nice photo, grain and all.
Last edited:
on development or changing the box speed/rating in camera?
actually for this it will have to be developed regularly since i don’t think they cover push/pull in class.
maybe i will just rate it at 1600 when i shoot like mike suggests.
Back in my darkroom days I found the the choice of developer was just as important as the film, when trying to control or manipulate grain. I remember Hc-100 produced finer gran than D-76 There was also a few non Kodak developers which were very kind to grain. Its been a while so I not sure what else is still made, perhaps google can help.
i think they use ilford developers in her school.
i’m probably overthinking this (as usual). i’ll just start shooting and see what happens. ?
On paper Ilford claims Ilfotec HC is the equivalent of HC-110, although in practice I've not found a developer that mimics HC-110 exactly(and it's also not one that I've found very amenable to homebrewing either).
D76 is probably the most common developer in the world, and ID-11 is its direct equivalent. I use a lot of D76, and given that its a solvent type developer you can tame grain a fair bit(or at least apparent grain) by using it at full strength, although I prefer the contrast from 1:1 or even 1:2.
I'm not a TMAX person, but found that I like them in general, and P3200(TMZ) in particular, in TMAX developer. I usually shoot TMZ at 1600...
BTW, @mollyc if you drop your roll of TMZ into your F100, the camera will automatically set to meter at ASA 3200 when it reads the film speeds off the can. You can manually over-ride it-you can get a useable(but ugly) image at 6400 and you lose a lot of contrast in the 800-1600 range.
Kodak supplies data for development times when shot at different speeds
![Screen Shot 2022-02-16 at 7.35.52 AM.png]( "Screen Shot 2022-02-16 at 7.35.52 AM.png")
(here's the full data sheet https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/default/files/files/products/F4001.pdf )
D76 is probably the most common developer in the world, and ID-11 is its direct equivalent. I use a lot of D76, and given that its a solvent type developer you can tame grain a fair bit(or at least apparent grain) by using it at full strength, although I prefer the contrast from 1:1 or even 1:2.
I'm not a TMAX person, but found that I like them in general, and P3200(TMZ) in particular, in TMAX developer. I usually shoot TMZ at 1600...
BTW, @mollyc if you drop your roll of TMZ into your F100, the camera will automatically set to meter at ASA 3200 when it reads the film speeds off the can. You can manually over-ride it-you can get a useable(but ugly) image at 6400 and you lose a lot of contrast in the 800-1600 range.
Kodak supplies data for development times when shot at different speeds
(here's the full data sheet https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/default/files/files/products/F4001.pdf )
well I won't personally develop it, my daughter will in school, so she will just do what her teacher advises. ? She's a little apprehensive about developing for me, but I really want to collaborate with her.
I'm hoping to shoot in the Fuji but I have to see how the roll I just shot turns out first, to make sure it works. I can pick it up from the lab on Friday. I had a minor catastrophe with the film breaking off in camera when I tried to rewind it. I didn't realize I had to unlock the sprocket with the bottom button. A and I went to a basement bathroom and she got it out of the camera, so hopefully it will develop okay.
Lots of learning experiences moving to film!
I'm hoping to shoot in the Fuji but I have to see how the roll I just shot turns out first, to make sure it works. I can pick it up from the lab on Friday. I had a minor catastrophe with the film breaking off in camera when I tried to rewind it. I didn't realize I had to unlock the sprocket with the bottom button. A and I went to a basement bathroom and she got it out of the camera, so hopefully it will develop okay.
Lots of learning experiences moving to film!
I did practice camera scanning the other day, and will self scan the seven rolls I dropped off yesterday. Will be nice to save money and time on scanning. I have to break even on the home scan stuff first of course. And time wise, I don't like the scans from my local lab for my work, so I usually have to wait 7-15 days for mail away scans. I think self scanning will be relatively fast once I get the hang of it.
Back in the day I worked in a pro lab. We had everything from drum scanners to Fuji frontiers. I now scan with my DSLR and you can achieve great results and have total control. Good luck with you home scanning, I'm sure you will master it soon.
Could you run a roll of film through a camera and help her with a practice run before she has to do it in school maybe? So she has confidence when doing it under observation? Either way, would be great to hear how she does and how she feels about it.
7 rolls. Superb…. My friend went on vacation to his wife’s hometown in Puglia Italy last year and in 2 weeks he shot 42 rolls of film! Made me laugh as it finally explained why 42 is the answer to the greatest question of all…. The meaning of life is of course to frame, shoot, wind, repeat….. 42 rolls at a time….
(those worthy will understand this joke)